For me Pop was their low point. I think it also broke them into a new and younger audience and they've been chasing this idea ever since. Hence their need to remain relevant. Then there's the fans that want them to stay the same. Guess that's where the conflict begins. Maybe we can say the same about The Stones? I know I'm guilty of it. Anyhow, it must be frustrating for these guys sometimes dealing with us. People laugh but I say that I got the better end of the deal being a fan. Of course that's a matter of opinion.

Quote
leteyer
Found this Tweet in an article abiut the album and it is really funny:

@dimasario if you play a U2 song backwards, you'll hear messages from the devil. Even worse, if you play it forward, you'll hear U2. )

I am still laughing.

And if you play it forward a couple times, you might end up likeing it^^^

Quote
U2Stonesfan
And if you play it forward a couple times, you might end up likeing it^^^

Or you could get all preachy like Bono.

Hard to decide whether it's worth the risk!

Quote
frankotero
For me Pop was their low point...

It sure was! I was a huge U2 fan before that album. Rattle & Hum is U2 at its finest! Pop is U2 at its worst. The new album is somewhere in between (i guess, obviously).

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
frankotero
For me Pop was their low point...

It sure was! I was a huge U2 fan before that album. Rattle & Hum is U2 at its finest! Pop is U2 at its worst. The new album is somewhere in between (i guess, obviously).

Rattle and Hum has some good songs; it got absolutely slated on release; and to a point, still is. The arrogance of the band, ingratiating themselves with influences they never had - Dylan, BB King, Elvis...etc. The live footage in the movie is good, but the album; despite some genuinely good tracks, but nowhere as good as the excellent 'Joshua Tree' and 'Achtung Baby'.

The Super Deluxe of Achtung I'm listening at the moment, it's magnificent - full disc of B Sides, and a full disc of alternate/extended versions of the full album.

The Achtung Super Deluxe is very cool indeed. Wish I had the money for the Uber Deluxe but couldn't see the need to spend so much in the end. Wasn't that the same price as the Brussels '73 Box signed by Mick? I'd of gone that way for the money. Luckily I found the Brussels Box for $300 on eBay, un-signed of course. Back to the new U2 album, I've discovered skipping the first song helps me to enjoy the album a little more. Don't like the music on that one. Too bad as I like The Ramones a lot.

Quote
IrelandCalling4

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
frankotero
For me Pop was their low point...

It sure was! I was a huge U2 fan before that album. Rattle & Hum is U2 at its finest! Pop is U2 at its worst. The new album is somewhere in between (i guess, obviously).

Rattle and Hum has some good songs; it got absolutely slated on release; and to a point, still is. The arrogance of the band, ingratiating themselves with influences they never had - Dylan, BB King, Elvis...etc. The live footage in the movie is good, but the album; despite some genuinely good tracks, but nowhere as good as the excellent 'Joshua Tree' and 'Achtung Baby'.

The Super Deluxe of Achtung I'm listening at the moment, it's magnificent - full disc of B Sides, and a full disc of alternate/extended versions of the full album.

A full disc of alternate/extended versions of the album? I didn't know about that one. I got the 2 disc reissue. I didn't spring for the 6 disc set. I know it's got a lot of those horrible 'remixes' on it. And the 'baby' version of the album, which I guess is earlier mixes of the LP tracks.

Just pulled out my copy of the box set. The receipt says 90 euros, a great price for an outstanding box in my opinion. Not just a repeat of already available stuff, plus a fantastic book. Plus it's my favorite U2 album.

I would love to have it confirmed that Apple paid U2 100 million dollars for this allegedly free album. If true then U2 made out just fine and it was not sent out for free. Someone paid. And this was Apple who did this for business reasons and PR. Nothing wrong with Apple doing this. I make no negative judgement on this. This is business and PR.

I would only fault U2 giving off the image that they are giving out their latest album for free out of the goodness of their hearts....no...they are getting paid by Apple (if confirmed)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-20 22:06 by triceratops.

Quote
triceratops
I would love to have it confirmed that Apple paid U2 100 million dollars for this allegedly free album. If true then U2 made out just fine and it was not sent out for free. Someone paid. And this was Apple who did this for business reasons and PR. Nothing wrong with Apple doing this. I make no negative judgement on this. This is business and PR.

I would only fault U2 giving off the image that they are giving out their latest album for free out of the goodness of their hearts....no...they are getting paid by Apple (if confirmed)

Then get it confirmed before making conclusions that suit your paranoid theories and spread them together with your irrational hatred.

"Nothing wrong with Apple doing this...I would only fault U2"

And even if it was true, what would be wrong with it? It is fine with Apple, since it is business and PR, but it is not okay with U2? And what else would it be? Business and PR, of course.

"U2 giving off the image that they are giving out their latest album for free out of the goodness of their hearts"

And where did you get this? Where did you hear this? (Other than in your head). When the Apple announced this thing, Bono clearly said that Apple will have to pay for this, since they are not going in for free music. Here at 6:55 -



The album went FOR FREE to the Apple subscribers. This way of course people who need to argue started to twist it and shout that it is for those who PAID the subscription, so it is not for free. But all those people who PAID for the subscription also have to PAY for any download they make. But not for this album. So it is FREE FOR THE SUBSCRIBERS. That was the way it was presented, that was the way it was done. Neither Apple nor U2 have ever said that this album was for free. But I guess you don't want to understand this in the first place, so I am wasting my time here anyway.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-20 23:08 by Happy24.

Not wasting your time completely Happy24. Some people understand and appreciate what is going on here. Keep on rocking.

The same with U2 "business" - leaving Ireland because of tax issues.

I don't mind if they do that or not, but then don't "preach" to other people how to behave, to give money, fundrasing, doing business for free and so on.

They are just as anybody else - they like as much money in their own pocket as possible. They are not better than anybody else.

But that's not the impression Bono / Edge try to give - they try to give a false impression of themselves being good taxpayers, contributers to poverty, giving things for free etc. and they are not.

In that respect, I much more like Stones - they keep low profile and do what they want in a discrete way.

Quote
mtaylor
The same with U2 "business" - leaving Ireland because of tax issues.

I don't mind if they do that or not, but then don't "preach" to other people how to behave, to give money, fundrasing, doing business for free and so on.

They are just as anybody else - they like as much money in their own pocket as possible. They are not better than anybody else.

But that's not the impression Bono / Edge try to give - they try to give a false impression of themselves being good taxpayers, contributers to poverty, giving things for free etc. and they are not.

In that respect, I much more like Stones - they keep low profile and do what they want in a discrete way.

The Stones left England because of taxes. Seems that a few bands have done that kind of thing.

I don't recall reading or hearing anywhere by any member of the band that they are the best at fundraising, telling people how to behave etc. And if you really think the contributions they've done as a band and as individuals to poverty is a false impression you have a serious problem with understanding facts and reality.

Quote
triceratops
I would love to have it confirmed that Apple paid U2 100 million dollars for this allegedly free album. If true then U2 made out just fine and it was not sent out for free. Someone paid. And this was Apple who did this for business reasons and PR. Nothing wrong with Apple doing this. I make no negative judgement on this. This is business and PR.

I would only fault U2 giving off the image that they are giving out their latest album for free out of the goodness of their hearts....no...they are getting paid by Apple (if confirmed)

No one said Apple paid U2 $100 million except for publications that don't know how to read. What was said is it's possible that the hype would be equivalent to a label spending $100 million on promotion. It may be worth $100 million. That is not THEY GAVE U2 $100 MILLION.

Like how Sony lost their ass with Whacko and the pathetic HIStory album - Sony lost gazillions of dollars thanks to that fiasco.

Quote
liddas
I truly don't understand how U2/Apple giving for free (and "free" it is not, but this is another discussion) can harm other artists.

The music business is not better or worse than what it was 30 years ago. It's only different.

C

I'll try to explain it for you.

Let's say you are in the business of making widgits (or chairs or computers or websites or just about anything else people want and will buy). You put your effort and time into making these widgits and of course expect to get paid for your efforts by selling said widgits.

One day you find out someone down the street is also making widgits but he is giving them away for free. Your widgit business tanks because everyone decides free widgits are better than ones they have to pay for. So, in frustration, you decide to get out of the widgit business and tell your kids " don't ever get into the widgit business, there is no money in it and people are getting widgits for free.

Now instead of widgits lets say your buisness is creating and recording songs. The songs take effort and time to create and you expect to be able to sell them to make a living........In this case they call it creative property but the analogy is still applicable.

So when U2/Apple give songs away for free they are contributing to this creative property devaluation that has killed the incentive for new and other artists to take up or continue this profession. The very same incentives that motivated U2 to record and market Rattle and Hum.

This financial reward is what made the record industry a much better place for artists 30 years ago. If you are strictly a consumer, yes you can get all your music for free or very cheaply so it may seem like a good thing for you; but I believe the quality of the music selection is bound to suffer since people who are smart enough to expect to make a decent living selling their recorded music will choose not to do so.

Hope you understand liddas. peace

Apple’s Devious U2 Album Giveaway Is Even Worse Than Spam
By Vijith Assar
09.16.14

>U2SPAM

Last week, Apple gave us all a gift called Songs of Innocence. On Monday, it released instructions on how to give that gift back.

The company concluded its big reveal of the Apple Watch and the newest generation iPhones with a curious coda: 10 years after the U2 song “Vertigo” was used in one of the first “dancing silhouette” iPod ads, the band took to the stage to unveil a surprise new album being distributed exclusively by Apple, and given to all users of the iTunes Music Store. In a press release, Apple calls this, correctly, “the largest album release ever.” “A big moment in music history. And you’re part of it,” crows the U2 page Apple set up on its website. “Never before have so many people owned one album, let alone on the day of its release.”
This is not In Rainbows, and should instead be remembered primarily as a monumental blunder by the tech industry.

This is all technically true, but bloviating aside, there’s a very simple reason why this is unprecedented, and that is because it doesn’t make any sense. Never before has such a major technology company also operated as publicist for a creative artist. The whole endeavor yearns desperately to be a landmark new innovation for the music industry, perhaps something along the lines of Radiohead’s legitimately earth-moving In Rainbows, which was self-released with variable pricing in 2007 and remains the gold standard against which music industry innovation is measured.

But this is not In Rainbows, and as such should instead be remembered primarily as a monumental blunder by the tech industry. The delivery mechanism amounts to nothing more than spam with forced downloads, and nothing less than a completely indefensible expansion by Apple beyond its operational purview. This company makes hardware and operating systems—even if it’s one to which I’ve more or less entrusted the management logistics of my personal music collection. It has, demonstrably, no competence in the sort of social and cultural thought that should have gone into a well-orchestrated version of this same gimmick, like, say, a free album as a birthday gift. It also certainly has no business forcing files of any sort onto my computer without my permission.


Automated downloads are great for the things you actually want to download, like a favorite podcast or the kind of security updates that might have prevented the massive recent leak of private photos from Apple’s iCloud service. WordPress and Google Chrome keep themselves safe and stable using almost imperceptible background update processes, and the Internet is healthier for it. But to anoint an otherwise inconsequential cultural artifact as worthy of bandwidth, storage space, and mental overhead on behalf of every single iTunes user is tantamount to Apple picking the music for the devices it sells. (It actually tried to do that in 2004 with a U2-branded special edition iPod, which came loaded with the band’s entire back catalog and was billed as “the world’s first digital box set.” The product was eventually killed, presumably after lackluster sales, since to date I’ve still never seen one in the wild.) Consider just the time wasted on finding and deleting it almost 500 million times. Is the company completely oblivious to the idea that users of its technology products come in shapes other than those who would be interested in a pop-rock band popular among older white males?

For the first week, it was literally impossible to delete the U2 album, because it had been registered as a “past purchase” for every user of the iTunes Music Store. This meant that so long as users wanted to automatically download their media purchases—a reasonable assumption, given that they, you know, purchased them—the album would continue to show up again and again. The only alternative was to disable automatic downloading of iTunes purchases, or to log in to the desktop client and “hide” the purchase; this wouldn’t delete it completely, but you wouldn’t see it1. Yesterday Apple added a special tool that could be used to permanently remove it from the purchase history. If nothing else, Songs of Innocence is the first album to command a custom-coded deletion tool and an official accompanying support document issued by one of the largest technology companies in history.

“For the people out there who have no interest in checking us out, look at it this way… the blood, sweat and tears of some Irish guys are in your junk mail,” says Bono, missing the point in a letter on the band’s web site. Nope! Not in the junk mail, but instead in a position of unwarranted prominence on the expensive device I use to organize and execute almost everything of importance in my life, including work, friends, communication, and especially music. If I use an automated backup utility like, say, Apple’s own Time Machine application, the album is now also taking up space in my disaster recovery archive, perhaps crowding out another album, or irreplaceable photos, or something else more worthy (which is to say, anything else whatsoever). There might be an idea worth talking about here if the album had showed up in the Trash instead, preemptively deleted on the correct assumption that I don’t care—which would have been extremely easy to predict algorithmically, given the information Apple probably already has gathered about my musical tastes.

Of course, you can be sure both those same marketing analytics are being reported to U2 as part of this deal, and that we’ll never find out how many of the 500 million recipients deleted the album immediately. To put this in context, No Line on the Horizon, U2?s previous album, has shipped about 1.1 million copies domestically since its release in 2009, which is as many as Lady Gaga’s Born This Way moved in its first week. Michael Jackson’s Thriller, the best-selling album ever, has moved 29 million copies domestically to date.

Forcible dissemination of a trinket that statistics suggest is useless to 498 million of the 500 million people who received it is a simple demonstration of privilege: U2 is among the few bands with the grandfathered-in industry connections to get something so absurd—and have Apple pay a nominal fee for each copy, no less. Apple, in turn, can leverage an uninterested and unwitting audience that is unlikely to do much about the transgression, given that they have no real recourse nor alternative.
If nothing else, Songs of Innocence is the first album to command a custom-coded deletion tool and an official accompanying support document issued by one of the largest technology companies in history.

Meaningful power has by now largely disappeared from the music industry; there’s no other conceivable way for U2 or any other musician to get 500 million copies shipped on day one. The largest tech companies arguably are centers of power in precisely the way record labels no longer are, and as such they always are examined under a microscope. For example, Dropbox sparked a controversy in April by appointing to its board Condoleeza Rice, George W. Bush’s former Secretary of State and a longtime defender of warrantless Internet surveillance. Knowing this, do you still have total confidence in the privacy of your Dropbox files? If not, can you also with total confidence grant Apple the ability to write files of its choosing onto your hardware? That is a strictly rhetorical question because, too bad, you already did.

There’s also an admission of failure here. The swift delivery of a removal tool is an admission by Apple that this was a bad idea. U2’s decision to promote by spam acknowledges delusions of grandeur in which it makes more sense to manipulate 15 percent of the world population rather than create art for true fans. It is not especially difficult to procure new music, whether through iTunes or elsewhere, so this rush to remove the one click required to do so seals iTunes’s fate as a sterile technological platform, not the cultural force it aspired to when it launched in 2003. Furthering cultural goals through iTunes now requires the special privilege of deviating from standard operating procedures; to date, this has been granted only to the sole band for whom Apple has ever built customized hardware.

“People don’t know what they want until you show it to them,” Steve Jobs famously said. So, Apple, is the inverse also true? Songs of Innocence is not a well-intentioned gift from a dorky uncle with poor taste, it is another example of how Big Brother can intrude on our lives. It demonstrates the need for transparency in software even to those who are not zealously devoted to the ideals of open source.

But now that you mention it, U2?s public image is heavily tied to an aspirational idealism; if any of that were actually true, they’d be appalled by the idea of forcing art down half a billion gullets, would cautiously view it as an omen of an alarming future, perhaps even write a song lamenting it. Then again, maybe chronicling our increasingly concurrent dystopian futures is a job better left to Radiohead.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-21 03:17 by Hairball.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
IrelandCalling4

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
frankotero
For me Pop was their low point...

It sure was! I was a huge U2 fan before that album. Rattle & Hum is U2 at its finest! Pop is U2 at its worst. The new album is somewhere in between (i guess, obviously).

Rattle and Hum has some good songs; it got absolutely slated on release; and to a point, still is. The arrogance of the band, ingratiating themselves with influences they never had - Dylan, BB King, Elvis...etc. The live footage in the movie is good, but the album; despite some genuinely good tracks, but nowhere as good as the excellent 'Joshua Tree' and 'Achtung Baby'.

The Super Deluxe of Achtung I'm listening at the moment, it's magnificent - full disc of B Sides, and a full disc of alternate/extended versions of the full album.

A full disc of alternate/extended versions of the album? I didn't know about that one. I got the 2 disc reissue. I didn't spring for the 6 disc set. I know it's got a lot of those horrible 'remixes' on it. And the 'baby' version of the album, which I guess is earlier mixes of the LP tracks.

That's the one GarLight, the 'Baby' Achtung - not just earlier mixes, but alternate versions; if you like the album, this is absolutely worth getting; it's as enjoyable as the album itself.

4 of the 6 Discs are worthy - the 2 remix CD's I don't bother with at all, bu the other 4 discs are well worth it. Album, Zooropa, B Sides, and 'Baby' Achtung. The DVD material is good too!

PS This article has info on the B Sides, and, if you go back to the homepage, has a page on 'Baby' Achtung also

[middle8.blogspot.ie]

********** as far as U2 being paid by Apple

[blogs.wsj.com]

Though the album is free for listeners, the band and its label, Universal Music Group, didn’t just give their product away.

“We’re not going in for the free music around here,” Bono joked on stage. Apple didn’t pay a traditional wholesale price for each of the 500 million albums. Instead the company paid Universal and U2 an undisclosed lump sum for the exclusive window to distribute the album. Universal plans to piggyback on the big push for “Songs of Innocence” to promote the band’s 12 older albums, a critical factor for a veteran rock band. The band’s recent albums have shown a steady decline in sales even steeper than the overall industry trend. “No Line on the Horizon,” from 2009, has sold 1.1 million copies in the U.S., according to Nielsen SoundScan. That’s down from 3.3 million copies for “How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb,” and 4.4 million copies for “All That You Can’t Leave Behind,” released in 2000.

As part of the deal forged by the band, manager Guy Oseary (hired by U2 last year to replace longtime manager Paul McGuinness) and Universal, Apple also made plans to use the first single from the album, “The Miracle (of Joey Ramone),” as a central element of a global, 30-day television advertising campaign for its new iPhones and Apple Watch. The campaign is believed to be worth around $100 million, according to a person familiar with the talks.

I think the bad PR could have been mostly avoided had U2 and Apple come out and said that U2's fee that Apple was paying, the $50 million (or whatever the hell it actually is) is being donated to build hospitals in Africa, and that Apple was matching that fee.

I still may not like the album, but probably wouldn't be as jaded as I am reading some of the stories on this.

I haven't listened to the album but know people that like it so I will give it a try. But even if I do like it, I don't like the 'privilege' and unprecedented access U2 has received here.

Hey treacle basically I have to say I like you from all your posts, but if I can give you some friendly advice I would say try this album for yourself. Don't be too involved with other people's opinion. Well now I probably said too much. Anyhow we're friends of music.

Quote
frankotero
Hey treacle basically I have to say I like you from all your posts, but if I can give you some friendly advice I would say try this album for yourself. Don't be too involved with other people's opinion. Well now I probably said too much. Anyhow we're friends of music.

Thanks frankotero...I'm definitely going to give it a try. In fact I already tried but was probably one of about 5 people of 500 million that couldn't actually FIND it the first time I looked in my iTunes, so I'll give it another try this morning.

I want to like the album but will note that I haven't liked anything they've done since All That You Can't Leave Behind in 2000 - and I love that album.

What I don't like is this 'campaign' but that wouldn't stop me from enjoying the music.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-21 17:45 by treaclefingers.

Quote
treaclefingers
I think the bad PR could have been mostly avoided had U2 and Apple come out and said that U2's fee that Apple was paying, the $50 million (or whatever the hell it actually is) is being donated to build hospitals in Africa, and that Apple was matching that fee.

I still may not like the album, but probably wouldn't be as jaded as I am reading some of the stories on this.

I haven't listened to the album but know people that like it so I will give it a try. But even if I do like it, I don't like the 'privilege' and unprecedented access U2 has received here.

There was a protest at Glastonbury a few years ago when U2 was playing over their tax dodging schemes which basically amount to establishing a few diverse corporations (such as one for touring and one for selling U2 gear) and domiciling them in Holland. The Stones have been doing this for a few decades under Prince Ruperts guidance. Story goes is that Keith clued in Bono on how this Dutch dodge deal works

So the reason people get cynical about U2 is their tax avoidance (not paying your dues in blues speak) while preaching/hectoring/demanding to various world leaders that their nations must send more aid to Africa or what have you. This aid money does not grow on trees. It comes from taxing the citizenry and in my opinion U2 has come up with many crafty ways of avoiding paying their fair share of taxes Ireland in particular.

And to repeat----
The average lo-information U2 fan. The free U2 album downloader thinks U2 is giving out free albums out of the goodness of their hearts. This is perception but not reality
U2 is getting paid for this "free download"

As in---- I have given away fruits from my fruit trees this summer and did not reap one red cent from the transactions. As in Apple did not pay me X thousands of dollars to give x number of fruits away to neighbors.
As in Jonathon Ives did not take a shine to the design and style of my fruits to smooth the way to some Apple thousands of dollars coming my way

Quote
treaclefingers
I think the bad PR could have been mostly avoided had U2 and Apple come out and said that U2's fee that Apple was paying, the $50 million (or whatever the hell it actually is) is being donated to build hospitals in Africa, and that Apple was matching that fee.

I still may not like the album, but probably wouldn't be as jaded as I am reading some of the stories on this.

I haven't listened to the album but know people that like it so I will give it a try. But even if I do like it, I don't like the 'privilege' and unprecedented access U2 has received here.

100% true and the geniuses working at U2 and Apple should have come up with this. But they could not because priority #1 was their individual ego-trips from snowing the cultish U2 fans with all this "free" propaganda about a free album. As in "who can I snooker today?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-21 18:09 by triceratops.

It's a fact that both The Rolling Stones and U2 are in for the big money and I actually couldn't care less about that.

Another fact is that U2 are still releasing new cds and the Stones are not.

So listen to the new U2 album and relax and remember that life is too short to be complaining about records,

especially if only one of the bands are writing new stuff.

Quote
The Stones
It's a fact that both The Rolling Stones and U2 are in for the big money and I actually couldn't care less about that.

Another fact is that U2 are still releasing new cds and the Stones are not.

So listen to the new U2 album and relax and remember that life is too short to be complaining about records,

especially if only one of the bands are writing new stuff.

two things...you're right about the music itself. As long as it is good, great.

The only issue that I see is that the Stones are in it for the money and make no bones about it.

U2 on the other hand is completely hypocritical.

I don't have to like the band to enjoy the music, but it doesn't hurt.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
frankotero
Hey treacle basically I have to say I like you from all your posts, but if I can give you some friendly advice I would say try this album for yourself. Don't be too involved with other people's opinion. Well now I probably said too much. Anyhow we're friends of music.

Thanks frankotero...I'm definitely going to give it a try. In fact I already tried but was probably one of about 5 people of 500 million that couldn't actually FIND it the first time I looked in my iTunes, so I'll give it another try this morning.

I want to like the album but will note that I haven't liked anything they've done since All That You Can't Leave Behind in 2000 - and I love that album.

What I don't like is this 'campaign' but that wouldn't stop me from enjoying the music.

I'm a U2 fan. I found the new LP to be a bit odd, almost alarming, at first. But after a couple of spins (on a CD in the car), well, the trend shock has calmed down and it's actually a pretty good album.

So... I mean, that's probably a normal reaction to something "different" from what one is expecting. I was floored when Love Is Strong came out and then floored the opposite way (dismay) when I got VOODOO LOUNGE.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
liddas
I truly don't understand how U2/Apple giving for free (and "free" it is not, but this is another discussion) can harm other artists.

The music business is not better or worse than what it was 30 years ago. It's only different.

C

I'll try to explain it for you.

Let's say you are in the business of making widgits (or chairs or computers or websites or just about anything else people want and will buy). You put your effort and time into making these widgits and of course expect to get paid for your efforts by selling said widgits.

One day you find out someone down the street is also making widgits but he is giving them away for free. Your widgit business tanks because everyone decides free widgits are better than ones they have to pay for. So, in frustration, you decide to get out of the widgit business and tell your kids " don't ever get into the widgit business, there is no money in it and people are getting widgits for free.

Now instead of widgits lets say your buisness is creating and recording songs. The songs take effort and time to create and you expect to be able to sell them to make a living........In this case they call it creative property but the analogy is still applicable.

So when U2/Apple give songs away for free they are contributing to this creative property devaluation that has killed the incentive for new and other artists to take up or continue this profession. The very same incentives that motivated U2 to record and market Rattle and Hum.

This financial reward is what made the record industry a much better place for artists 30 years ago. If you are strictly a consumer, yes you can get all your music for free or very cheaply so it may seem like a good thing for you; but I believe the quality of the music selection is bound to suffer since people who are smart enough to expect to make a decent living selling their recorded music will choose not to do so.

Hope you understand liddas. peace

The one thing you left out that matters the most regarding paying for something is quality. If the widget maker down the street sucks, well, at some point, he'll go out of business. And demand will be there for the dude who quit to come back.

It won't be "the same" but it still amounts to making a living.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-09-21 23:32 by GasLightStreet.